Department faulted

Press, 17 June 1988, Page 2

Department faulted

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

A confidential report by chairmen of Regional Employment Access Councils leaked to “The Press” yesterday is extremely critical of the Labour Department. It was a report to the Minister of Labour, Mr Goff, snad was a collective reponse to a report to the Secretary of Labour on the comprehensive audit done on the general Access schemes. This collective response was completed in May and its final assessment of the audit was unfavourable. “We found it necessary to be uncompromising because this is a political document,” said the chairman of the co-ordinating group for R.E.A.C., Mr Lesley Harwood. The remarks in the audit on transitional difficulties, inadequate implementation procedure and the enormous workload of the foundation members of R.E.A.C.S had been appreciated. But the lasting impression of R.E.A.C. leaders was that the outcome of the audit ha been predetermined, the co-ordinator said. It had not been a comprehensive audit, but a crude attempt to justify a particular set of recommendations which reflected the restructured model of the department. “This (audit) is a political document, not a credible and objective evaluation of Access, and as such has no place in the history of Access or in establishing its future,” Mr Harwood said.

The timing of tbe audit had also been a matter of concern. To try to make a comprehensive audit with such specific terms of reference only six months after setting up the first pilot R.E.A.C. had not been appropriate, the co-ordinator said. At most, it might have been appropriate to audit the effectiveness of the implementation process. The Opposition spokesman on employment, Mr Winston Peters, said the report was evidence that Access was being treated a a political football to be kicked the R.E.A.C.S and the department. It showed a climate of hostility and damned the department’s audit of Acess as political and biased. The reaction from the R.E.A.C.S required immediate clarification and investigation, and he called for an independent audit. The department’s audit had not been independent, he said, because it had included four departmental officers and only one from the Audit Office. It had been dominated by a clear political viewpoint and with only 18 per cent of Access trainees finding jobs such undercurrents were serious. There was Acess-related legislation before Parliament now and Mr Peters criticised the failure of the Government to make this report on the audit available to Parliament for consideration as part of the debate. The Minister of Employment was guilty of hiding a document of critical importance to that legislation.